05-11-2008, 04:04 AM
above url
Sanjoy Das
September 21, 2007 07:34 PM
nickn:
Puerile accusations such as "sneaky Indian" does not get us anywhere. As is clear from my earlier comment, I am questioning the concept of IQ tests itself. I am not speaking as an Indian but as a scientist and a human being.
Your point about the Math olympiad is wrong. The very same source claims that Iran's IQ is 84%, the same as Indiaâs!
The obvious reason why Indians don't do well in Math Olympiads is the same as why Indian's don't do well in the Olympics, or any competition for that matter: poor infrastructure, malnutrition (India's malnutrition levels are comparable to sub-Saharan Africa), a bad education system, and the abhorrent caste system. âBad memesâ like communism, apparently have gone a long way in bettering the lives of the poor.
I will now waste my time with Lynn's book. But I have noticed Lynn report that the IQ of Indians when raised in "first world" living conditions is 98%:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001949.html
That study further reveals Lynn's own racist intentions - he was trying to "elevate" Indian IQ to "caucasian" levels!
Now whether India's IQ is 81, 84, or 98, I DON'T CARE, simply because IQ is no measure of intelligence as I will argue below.
The rest of the comment â such as IBM investing in Vietnam over India being an indication of Indian intelligence â is just too silly to merit a response.
I dare you to provide counter arguments for each of these points:
ONE: Yes, the poorer the nation is, the lower the chances of survival of the less "fit". Jared Diamond correctly observed that Papuans are very intelligent. People in hunter-gatherer societies are exceptionally clever, because of increased evolutionary pressure towards higher intelligence. At the other extreme, in wealthy nations, thanks to good healthcare, basically everyone survives and reproduces. Within India, I have personally observed that those living in abject poverty are smarter on an average than their wealthy counterparts.
Exactly how is calling some group of humanity intelligent âlaughableâ?
TWO: The Piraha â an Amazonian tribe â cannot count beyond the number One!! They have no numbers, just âoneâ and âmanyâ. The concept of counting is so alien, no matter how much they are taught, they can simply not grasp the idea. On the other hand, the coot (a bird) has the ability to count.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiege...,414291,00.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...0402_coots.html
Who, according to you, is more intelligent: the Piraha native (a human), or the coot (a bird)?
THREE: The Welsh have better mathematical abilities than the English:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1531275.stm
The difference is solely because of language. Now, if you know any Chinese, you will find that the Chinese language preserves the place-coding in numbers very well (unlike the Indian languages, where it is too complex).
That, my friend, is precisely why speakers of some languages do better than others at mathematics: the difference lies in language. It is NURTURE, not NATURE.
FOUR: IQ tests are based upon very trivial numerical and pattern matching problems. In computer science, there is a concept called Chomskyâs hierarchy, for computing machines, based on their computing power. At the lowest level is the Finite State Automaton, and at the highest is the Turing Machine. To do calculations like addition/ subtraction/multiplication/elementrary pattern recognition â precisely the kind of tasks one is given in IQ tests â all you need is a rudimentary Finite State Machine. The ability of humans on the other hand, goes well beyond that of a Turing machine. It is capable of MUCH more than rudimentary arithmetic.
In other words, trying to gauge human intelligence through simple IQ tests is like trying to measure the velocity of light with a speed-o-meter!
Sanjoy Das
September 21, 2007 07:34 PM
nickn:
Puerile accusations such as "sneaky Indian" does not get us anywhere. As is clear from my earlier comment, I am questioning the concept of IQ tests itself. I am not speaking as an Indian but as a scientist and a human being.
Your point about the Math olympiad is wrong. The very same source claims that Iran's IQ is 84%, the same as Indiaâs!
The obvious reason why Indians don't do well in Math Olympiads is the same as why Indian's don't do well in the Olympics, or any competition for that matter: poor infrastructure, malnutrition (India's malnutrition levels are comparable to sub-Saharan Africa), a bad education system, and the abhorrent caste system. âBad memesâ like communism, apparently have gone a long way in bettering the lives of the poor.
I will now waste my time with Lynn's book. But I have noticed Lynn report that the IQ of Indians when raised in "first world" living conditions is 98%:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001949.html
That study further reveals Lynn's own racist intentions - he was trying to "elevate" Indian IQ to "caucasian" levels!
Now whether India's IQ is 81, 84, or 98, I DON'T CARE, simply because IQ is no measure of intelligence as I will argue below.
The rest of the comment â such as IBM investing in Vietnam over India being an indication of Indian intelligence â is just too silly to merit a response.
I dare you to provide counter arguments for each of these points:
ONE: Yes, the poorer the nation is, the lower the chances of survival of the less "fit". Jared Diamond correctly observed that Papuans are very intelligent. People in hunter-gatherer societies are exceptionally clever, because of increased evolutionary pressure towards higher intelligence. At the other extreme, in wealthy nations, thanks to good healthcare, basically everyone survives and reproduces. Within India, I have personally observed that those living in abject poverty are smarter on an average than their wealthy counterparts.
Exactly how is calling some group of humanity intelligent âlaughableâ?
TWO: The Piraha â an Amazonian tribe â cannot count beyond the number One!! They have no numbers, just âoneâ and âmanyâ. The concept of counting is so alien, no matter how much they are taught, they can simply not grasp the idea. On the other hand, the coot (a bird) has the ability to count.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiege...,414291,00.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...0402_coots.html
Who, according to you, is more intelligent: the Piraha native (a human), or the coot (a bird)?
THREE: The Welsh have better mathematical abilities than the English:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1531275.stm
The difference is solely because of language. Now, if you know any Chinese, you will find that the Chinese language preserves the place-coding in numbers very well (unlike the Indian languages, where it is too complex).
That, my friend, is precisely why speakers of some languages do better than others at mathematics: the difference lies in language. It is NURTURE, not NATURE.
FOUR: IQ tests are based upon very trivial numerical and pattern matching problems. In computer science, there is a concept called Chomskyâs hierarchy, for computing machines, based on their computing power. At the lowest level is the Finite State Automaton, and at the highest is the Turing Machine. To do calculations like addition/ subtraction/multiplication/elementrary pattern recognition â precisely the kind of tasks one is given in IQ tests â all you need is a rudimentary Finite State Machine. The ability of humans on the other hand, goes well beyond that of a Turing machine. It is capable of MUCH more than rudimentary arithmetic.
In other words, trying to gauge human intelligence through simple IQ tests is like trying to measure the velocity of light with a speed-o-meter!